Large-scale migration signals the end of the European social model
This argument is used in the debates Does being on the left necessarily mean being in favor of mass immigration? and Should we accept immigration?.
This argument is a justification of Mass immigration is a by-product of unbridled liberalism and globalization.
This argument is an objection to Welcoming migrants is good for European economies.
Summary
Quotes
“And Smith considers a number of different scenarios. The two main ones, "Eurafrica" and "Fortress Europe" are, in his view, two dead ends. The first was envisaged at European level and by UN demographers in a report, published in 2000, entitled "Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution for Declining and Ageing Populations?" It was on this report that Renaud Camus based his sulphurous theory of the "Great Replacement". The idea was to bring nearly 1 million immigrants a year to Europe to halt demographic decline and save the pension and social security system. In reality, notes Smith, drawing on the work of economist Paul Collier, "mass immigration of Africans would do nothing to improve the Old Continent's dependency ratio". The gain in terms of pension contributions would not offset the costs generated by immigration in terms of security, care or education. On the contrary, for Smith, the rush to Europe would mean the end of the welfare state.”
References
Justifications
Objections
-
The racism of the far right is more "smoothed out", but still very much present
-
The employers tend to demonize immigration in order to divert attention from anti-social measures.
-
It's the bosses who take advantage of migrants to increase exploitation.
-
Europe's aberrant and suicidal economic policies